FOREST COVERAGE

The proposed Project changed the land use designations for a limited number of private parcels in the communities of Alpine, Cuyamaca, Julian, and Campo/Lake Morena, totaling approximately 400 acres that are adjacent to former Forest Conservation Initiative Lands (FCI) lands. This action is intended to consider changed circumstances and to ensure that these lands are designated in a manner consistent with the changes proposed for the former FCI lands.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

On December 8, 2010 the Board of Supervisors directed staff to prepare a General Plan Amendment for the Forest Conservation Initiative Lands (FCI) consistent with the adopted General Planland use designations. The FCI was a voter-approved initiative which required that private lands within theCleveland National Forest in San Diego County have a minimum lot size of 40 acres. The FCI was originally approved in 1993 and expired on December 31, 2010. The land use map changes adopted as part of the General Plan Update did not include FCI lands. When the FCI expired, the areas affected by the FCI reverted to the land use designations in effect before the FCI was enacted. As a result, the General Plan Update land use designations, Guiding Principles and Policies are not consistent with those currently applied to the former FCI lands.

Primary components of the Project at this time include:

Land Use Map Revisions for approximately:

71,300 acres of private-owned lands that were subject to the former Forest Conservation Initiative (FCI) within the Alpine, Central Mountain, Desert, Jamul/Dulzura, Julian, Mountain Empire, North Mountain, Pendleton-DeLuz, and Ramona planning areas; and

400 acres of adjacent properties

Amendments to the Alpine, Central Mountain, Jamul/Dulzura, and North Mountain Community Plans

Zoning changes, when applicable, to ensure zoning consistency of the land use designations changes

When agencies like his work with government officials to place refugees, the presence of “family members” trumps the cost of living in other host cities. A place to live and a job are important, but so is a support system for people who have experienced the atrocities of war. The very same wars the U.S. caused.

But that doesn’t explain how those early refugees – those pioneering aunts, uncles and cousins – made San Diego their home. For that, it’s best to start with the basics.

When an individual flees war or persecution, he or she must register with the United Nations office in the country to which he or she fled. Most Somalis crossed the border into Kenya and registered there.

The U.N. must then decide whether the refugee should return home, stay where he or she is or move to a third country. Less than 1 percent qualifies for that third option. The United States accepts more than half of those who qualify. In 2011, the U.S. accepted 80,000 total refugees; the most came from Bhutan in the Himalayas and Burma in East Asia.

After a refugee is approved to move to the U.S. and goes through security and health screenings, the State Department asks private resettlement agencies to sponsor him or her. Refugees must typically relocate to cities where those resettlement agencies are located.

The IRC is one of the largest resettlement agencies. Most of its 22 programs dot both coasts, where the cost of living is high but the cities are diverse.

By the early 1980s, the IRC’s presence here meant San Diego was outfitted to resettle Ethiopian refugees fleeing war with Somalia. Many of those refugees were actually ethnic Somalis from a disputed territory in Ethiopia called Ogaden.

“A small group of Somali military personnel was also in San Diego at the time, training with American troops at Camp Pendleton,”Montgomery said. They stayed when civil war broke out in Somalia in 1991.

So by the time Somali refugees began moving to the United States in the 1990s, San Diego had two of the major prerequisites for refugee placement: cultural and familial ties, and a robust network of resettlement services.

Today, more than 10,000 Somalis live in San Diego. Most live, shop and pray in City Heights, where the IRC office and “Little Mogadishu” district are located. Their agrarian culture also gave rise to community gardens in the neighborhood and a large-scale farming operation in Pauma Valley.

But just because refugees have planted strong roots in San Diego doesn’t mean the resettlement has been ideal or easy.

Montgomery said many male East African refugees moved to Minnesota and Kansas early on to work in slaughterhouses and find affordable housing. Family members later joined them, followed by resettlement agencies and newly arrived refugees. The nation’s largest Somali population lives in and around Minneapolis.

And while City Heights is convenient for new refugees who need easy access to bus routes, its dense landscape can pose problems. Refugees who worked the land and ate homegrown produce back home often develop chronic diseases such as diabetes and high blood pressure once they move into cramped apartments and lose access to land. Refugee youth must contend with ethnic tension at school and gang activity on the streets.

Meanwhile, it’s San Diego’s newest refugee groups, the Burmese and Iraqis, who must find their way despite the high cost of living. But their placement here means they’ll have the help of resettlement workers who have aided more refugees than workers in any other part of the country.

This spring, we will spread protest against the U.S. use of drones for targeted killing and surveillance.

We are rapidly coming together for protest at drone manufacturing sites, military bases that deploy drones, and campuses where drone research and training are quickening.

World Can’t Wait will focus on reaching students especially, and in bringing out the voices of people who are targeted in the U.S. dirty wars.

The campaign will provide information on:

1. The suffering of tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Gaza who are under drone attack, documenting the killing, the wounding and the devastating impact of constant drone surveillance on community life.

2. How attack and surveillance drones have become a key element in a massive wave of surveillance, clandestine military attacks andMilitarization generated by the United States to “protect a global system” of manufacture and oil and mineral exploitation that is creating unemployment and poverty, accelerating the waste of nonrenewable resources and contributing to environmental destruction.

In addition to cases in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia, we will examine President Obama’s “pivot” into the Asia–Pacific, where the United States has already sold and deployed drones in the vanguard of a shift of 60% of its military forces to try to control China and to enforce the planned Trans–Pacific Partnership. We will show, among other things, how this surge of “pivot” forces, greatly enabled by drones, and supported by the US military-industrial complex, will hit every American community with even deeper cuts in the already fragile social programs on which people rely for survival. In short, we will connect drones and militarization with “austerity” in America.

3. How drone attacks have effectively destroyed international and domestic legal protection of the rights to life, privacy, freedom of assembly and free speech and have opened the way for new levels of surveillance and repression around the world, and how, in the United States, increasingdrone surveillance, added to surveillance by the National Security Agencyand police, provides a new weapon to repress black, Hispanic, immigrant and low-income communities and to intimidate Americans who are increasingly unsettled by lack of jobs, economic inequality, corporate control of politics and the prospect of endless war.

We will discuss how the United States government and corporations conspire secretly to monitor US citizens and particularly how the Administration is accelerating drone surveillance operations and surveillance inside the United States with the same disregard for transparency and law that it applies to other countries, all with the cooperation of the Congress.

The campaign will encourage activists around the world to win passage of local laws that prohibit Weaponized Drones and drone surveillance from being used in their communities as well as seeking national laws to bar the use of weaponized drones and drone surveillance.

The campaign will draw attention to the call for a ban on weaponized drones by RootsAction.org that has generated a petition with over 80,000 signersand to efforts by the Granny Peace Brigade (New York City), KNOWDRONES and others to achieve an international ban on both weaponized drones and drone surveillance.

San Diego is the US capital of spying and killer drone production. No Drones Days of Actionstarts on Thursday afternoon with street action and evening Overpass Light Brigade messaging; More demonstrations on Friday; winding up on Saturday with a general assembly at the Church of the Brethren/Friends Center campus. THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY to help move this nation away from empire and toward a better future.

May 15 – Thursday

4-7 pm – San Diego Veterans for Peace demonstration at Federal Building Front St. and Broadway, downtown San Diego. Street theater staged serial ‘drone attack’ by Artful Activist San Diego.

May 17 – Saturday

We are protesting nonviolently. We ask you to be open and respectful to all and to not use physical or verbal violence against those who disagree with us. We ask that there be no property destruction or damage during the protests that are part of these four days of action.

We ask that you respect the wishes of the organizers of the individual events. If you are not in agreement with the particular event tactics or organizers, we invite you to hold a protest of your choosing at a different time.

Sponsoring/Endorsing organizations: San Diego Coalition for Peace & Justice; Peace Resource Center of San Diego; Veterans for Peace San Diego Chapter; San Diego Overpass Light Brigade; Women Occupy San Diego (WOSD); Occupy San Diego; Artful Activist San Diego; Canvass for a Cause (CFAC); Back Country Voices; San Diego Alliance for Marriage Equality (SAME); San Diego BDS; United Against Police Terror San Diego; Green Party of San Diego; Code Pink; San Diego International Socialist Organization; AFSC-San Diego..

_________________________________________________________________

Housing Available for Out-of-Town Activists!

Make your plans to come to Drone Diego and local activists will welcome you into our homes.
Don’t delay! For housing info, contact Lynn: dissential@gmail.com

Concerned residents of San Diego County have joined together to form a citizens action group, ‘Back Country Voices | Citizen’s Action Group.’ Back Country Voices has provide the necessary public outreach and education to better address the ramifications of a ‘National Drone Testing Site’ in our back country. It was recently noted (September 24) in the UT San Diego, KPBS, and several news channels, that the 5 San Diego County Supervisors voted unanimously to approve San Diego back country as one of the 6 proposed ‘National Drone Test Sites’ to be determined by the FAA in December, 2013.

Recognizing that a tsunami could strike the U.S. coastline at any time, President Obama joinied NOAA to ask people to know their tsunami risk and prepare in case one were to strike. “During National Tsunami Preparedness Week, “I call on all Americans – especially those who live, work and relax on the coast – to learn more about tsunamis and better prepare for them,” President Obama wrote in a message released last month.

Although a tsunami cannot be prevented, community preparedness, timely warnings and effective response can save lives when seconds matter. To improve the nation’s collective preparedness for a large-scale tsunami disaster (CAPSTONE 2014 ), NOAA and its partners through the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program are conducting a number of local and national exercises to test and improve effectiveness of the U.S. Tsunami Warning System.­­­

This year’s preparedness week coincides with the 50th anniversary of the “Great Alaska Earthquake” of 1964, which generated a number of destructive tsunamis that killed 124 Americans and caused approximately $1 billion in damage. It was the largest recorded earthquake in U.S. history with a magnitude of 9.2. This year also marks 10 years since the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami that killed more than 200,000 people.

These somber anniversaries serve to remind us of the ever-present tsunami threat, and give us an opportunity to assess our personal risk and educate ourselves on how to respond to a tsunami.

In his message, President Obama writes that since 1964, our nation has made significant improvements in our ability to forecast, detect, and warn individuals of potential tsunami impacts. The Federal Government – in partnership with state and local governments – is working diligently to improve our coastal communities’ tsunami preparedness. Since we cannot prevent tsunamis, we must come together to enhance public awareness and prepare schools, volunteer groups, rescue and relief organizations, the private sector, and the media for coordinated action before, during and after a tsunami.

NOAA and its federal, state and local partners are helping the nation prepare (SeeFEMA CAPSTONE 2014 National Exercise Begins), but there is a role for everyone. People who live, work and play in tsunami-threatened areas must take time to know the warning signs of a tsunami, plan for a possible disaster, stay informed and quickly respond to the signs or warning of a tsunami. To learn more, visit NOAA Tsunami Website.

If a tsunami strikes near San Diego County, hundreds of thousands of people along the region’s 70 miles of coastline could be in danger.

Rick Wilson, senior engineering geologist with California Geological Survey, said San Diego County is fortunate that it doesn’t have large off-shore subduction zone faults that create magnitude-9 earthquakes.

“But we do have faults that can cause submarine landslides, and those landslides can trigger tsunamis,”Wilson warned.

Wilson said the state has been impacted by 13 tsunamis over the past 150 years; two occurred in the last four years, including the Japan tsunami in March 2011.

That’s why San Diego County officials and tsunami researchers have mapped out which addresses in the county are at risk of flooding.

Crawford said far away quakes would allow several minutes to several hours of evacuation time, but nearby quakes would give very little warning.

Forty-four tsunami evacuation route signs were installed in coastal areas around the county since 2010 now point out which way to flee if a big wave hits.

Crawford said it’s important for everyone to know the tsunami warning signs.

“If the earth shakes for 20 seconds, that’s a really significant earthquake. You need to leave the coast, go to a place that’s at least 100 feet above sea level or two miles inland if you can’t evacuate vertically,”Crawford said.

Other signs of a tsunami include a receding shoreline and a large ocean roaring sound.

Crawford urged San Diego County residents to register their mobile phones at readysandiego.org to receive emergency notifications.

How to Prepare for a Tsunami

To survive a tsunami, know when one is about to strike and what to do so you can act fast. Tsunami warnings are issued through television and radio, community sirens, local officials, text message alerts,wireless emergency alerts, NOAA Web sites and NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards. However, depending on where an earthquake occurs, some tsunamis can reach the coast within minutes, leaving little time to receive an alert so it is important to understand nature’s warnings:

A strong earthquake, or one that persists

A sudden rise or fall of the ocean

A loud, roaring sound from the ocean

How to respond:

Immediately move by foot inland to high ground outside the hazard zone

If you cannot quickly and safely move inland, go to higher floors of a sturdy building

Turn on your radio or television to learn if there is a tsunami warning

Stay away from the coast until officials say it is safe to return. A tsunami may consist of more than one wave and can last for hours. The first wave may not be the last or the most dangerous.

“Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country” (Southern California) – This is a guide for Southern California residents that discusses what should be done before, during, and after an earthquake or tsunami:http://earthquakecountry.info/roots/index.php

MWD has amassed hundreds of millions of dollars in recent months because it under-estimated water sales and over-estimated its expenditures.

April 8, 2014 –The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California on Tuesday raised rates for 2015 and 2016 despite having projected cash reserves of $840 million – an amount that is $352 million above its board-adopted maximum reserve limit. MWD’s board also voted to spend the over-collected revenue on unbudgeted expenses.
Officials from the San Diego County Water Authority and several of its 24 member agencies attended that Tuesday’s hearing in Los Angeles to defend the region’s ratepayers and urge no water rate increases be adopted. However, despite compelling information that rate increases are unneeded, the MWD board adopted 1.5 percent increases for each of the next two years.

The Water Authority’s delegates to MWD voted against the rate increases not only because they are unnecessary, but also because they are based on the same flawed methodology that the judge in San Francisco County Superior Court recently ruled violates the California Constitution, the California Government Code and the common law.“MWD had a chance to help ratepayers and water agencies by providing rate relief,”said Thomas V. Wornham, Chair of the Water Authority’s Board of Directors. “Instead, it’s continuing to charge more in an era when other public agencies are struggling to make do with less.“MWD says these rate increases will avert bigger rate increases down the road – but there’s no assurance that they will do so,”Wornham said.

“To avoid wild fluctuations in rates, MWD doesn’t need to raise rates now – it needs better long-term fiscal planning.”
In February, mayors of 14 cities in San Diego County called on their colleagues across Southern California to protest the unnecessary rate increases planned by MWD.

In March, the Water Authority used MWD’s own financial documents to develop estimates for how much money MWD is over-collecting from each water agency that buys water from MWD.

San Diego: The Town that Wouldn’t Give Up:

There are accusations of conspiracies, illegal secret meetings and double-dealing. Embarrassing documents and e-mails have been posted on an official Web site emblazoned with the words“Fact vs. Fiction.”Animosities have grown so deep that the players have resorted to exchanging lengthy, caustic letters, packed with charges of lying and distortion.

Water is a perennial source of conflict and anxiety throughout the arid West, but it has a particular resonance here in the deserts of Southern California. This is a place where major thoroughfares are named after water engineers (Mulholland Drive in Los Angeles) and literary essays (Essay: Holy Water, for instance) and films (“Chinatown”) have been devoted to its power and mystique.

At issue is San Diego’s longstanding contention that it has been bullied by a gang of its neighbors in the consortium, able by virtue of their number to force the county to pay exorbitant fees for water. The consortium had imposed two back-to-back 5 percent annual water rate increases on San Diego — scaled down, after strong protests, from what were originally set to be back-to-back increases of 7.5 percent a year.

The battle was fought in the courts with conflicting claims from the two sides — but also on the Internet. San Diego officials had created a sleek Web site to carry their argument to the public, posting 500 pages of documents they obtained through public records requests to discredit the other side.

And they might have struck oil, as it were, unearthing documents and e-mails replete with references to the “anti-San Diego coalition” and “a Secret Society,” and no matter that the purported conspirators contend that they were just being jocular.

“There is a lot of frustration,” said Jerry Sanders, the mayor of San Diego, who has watched from the sidelines as the independent San Diego Water Authority waged its wars. “It’s been building over the years.”

Asked about the tactics, Mr. Sanders demurred. “Whether they are effective or not, I’ll leave that to other people to judge.”

If nothing else, the fight has been an entertaining diversion from the kind of bland bureaucratic infighting that usually characterizes these kinds of disputes.

Dennis Cushman, the assistant general manager of the San Diego authority, said it posted the documents — and asked a judge to force the disclosure of a ream of other private e-mails and documents — so beleaguered water consumers “could see how the business of water in California is actually done.”

“We had suspicions about what was going on,” Mr. Cushman said. “We were shocked by the depth and scope and the level of sophistication of what was going on.”

“It’s not done in public,”he said. “It’s done out of public view. The meetings aren’t open. They are designed to expressly exclude the agency they are discriminating against.”

**

Projected overcollection for San Diego County Water Authority: $76,090,893.16

MWD Adopts Unnecessary Rate Increases for 2015 and 2016 While Over-Collecting $350 Million from Ratepayers

April 8, 2014 -The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California on Tuesday raised rates for 2015 and 2016 despite having projected cash reserves of $840 million – an amount that is $352 million above its board-adopted maximum reserve limit. MWD’s board also voted to spend the over-collected revenue on unbudgeted expenses.

Officials from the San Diego County Water Authority and several of its 24 member agencies attended Tuesday’s hearing in Los Angeles to defend the region’s ratepayers and urge no water rate increases be adopted. However, despite compelling information that rate increases are unneeded, the MWD board adopted 1.5 percent increases for each of the next two years.

The Water Authority’s delegates to MWD voted against the rate increases not only because they are unnecessary, but also because they are based on the same flawed methodology that a judge in San Francisco Superior Court recently ruled violates the California Constitution, the California Government Code and the common law.

“MWD had a chance to help ratepayers and water agencies by providing rate relief,” said Thomas V. Wornham, Chair of the Water Authority’s Board of Directors. “Instead, it’s continuing to charge more in an era when other public agencies are struggling to make do with less.

“MWD says these rate increases will avert bigger rate increases down the road – but there’s no assurance that they will do so,” Wornham said. “To avoid wild fluctuations in rates, MWD doesn’t need to raise rates now – it needs better long-term fiscal planning.”

In February, mayors of 14 cities in San Diego County called on their colleagues across Southern California to protest the unnecessary rate increases planned by MWD. In March, the Water Authority used MWD’s own financial documents to develop estimates for how much money MWD is over-collecting from each water agency that buys water from MWD. The total for Southern California at the end of June is projected to be $352 million above the maximum reserve limit set by MWD’s board. A real-time overcharge calculator, along with a breakdown by each MWD member agency, is at mwdfacts.com.

MWD has amassed hundreds of millions of dollars in recent months because it under-estimated water sales and over-estimated its expenditures. Instead of using the resulting over-collected revenue to provide rate relief next year, the MWD voted to spend it on unbudgeted expenses and continue its long history of increasing rates.

MWD’s 2015 and 2016 rates were adopted Tuesday along with the agency’s $1.64 billion budget for fiscal 2015 and its $1.69 billion budget for fiscal 2016. The Water Authority will account for higher costs from MWD when developing its rates for the Water Authority Board’s consideration in June.

In addition to opposing MWD’s rate proposal for 2015 and 2016, the Water Authority has sued MWD for setting rates that illegally overcharge San Diego County ratepayers in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. In February, a Superior Court judge in San Francisco tentatively ruled in favor of the Water Authority in two related cases, saying MWD violated cost of service requirements of California’s Constitution, statutes and common law. The parties are awaiting a final ruling in the first phase of the trial before the second phase of the trial begins later this year.

Phase 2 of the trial is expected to decide the disposition of tens of millions of dollars in disputed payments the Water Authority has made to MWD since 2011. Should the court award a refund to the Water Authority, the Water Authority will deduct its litigation expenses and return the remaining money to its 24 member agencies in proportion to their past payment of MWD’s illegal charges. For more information about the Water Authority’s lawsuits, go to www.sdcwa.org/mwdrate-challenge.

A group of San Diego civic and network security leaders, angling to catch a rising wave in the computer security industry, are establishing a Cyber Center of Excellencehere to help accelerate the regional growth of cybersecurity jobs and technologies.

The new center reflects a growing nationwide demand for cybersecurity professionals, driven chiefly by an onslaught of costly, high-profile Internet attacks on U.S. computer networks, including Target, The New York Times, Visa, Nasdaq, and others.

A recent report from Burning Glass Technologies, a Boston labor-market analytics firm, shows that cybersecurity job postings soared by 74 percent from 2007 to 2013. The firm says it counted 209,749 postings last year for cybersecurity-related jobs nationwide. The field accounts for about 10 percent of all IT job postings, but the growth rate is more than twice as fast as the rate for all IT job postings.

The move to create a local Cyber Centre of Excellencestemmed in large part from an assessment of the cybersecurity industry that was done over the past five months by the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation (EDC). An executive summary of the study concludes, “San Diego is especially well-positioned to benefit from this trend, with both a critical mass of firms and a solid economic foundation on which to grow.”

The results of the report, which is being released today, “will surprise a lot of people,”Eset CEO Andrew Lee told me by telephone. “We have well over 100 companies here directly involved in cybersecurity.”

The Cyber Center of Excellence is intended to serve as both a centralized resource for companies and organizations looking for help—as well as a way to draw together a largely fragmented industry. The EDC estimates there are about 40,000 IT workers in the region.

“The whole aim is to unify military, government officials, industry, and academia behind the need for improved cybersecurity,”Sentek Global CEO Eric Basu told me. (Sentek, a government and commercial contractor that provides IT security program management, information assurance certifications, and other services, co-sponsored the EDC study.)

Organizers describe the center as a “public-private partnership dedicated to accelerating the cyber innovation economy”in San Diego. Sentek Globall, ESET, and other local companies are backing the initiative, with help from the EDC, local political leaders, and the San Diego headquarters of the U.S. Navy’s Space And Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), a multi-billion dollar agency that oversees major Navy contracts for IT systems engineering, technical support, and other programs.

“This cybersecurity threat is only increasing—not only in defense but obviously for every one of us in our personal lives,” Brady said. “SPAWARmanages about $1 billion in Navy contracts from its San Diego headquarters, “so I look at this effort where we could help not only on the procurement side by being able to contract with more companies, but also by teaming with universities and have that opportunity to find great employees to bring into SPAWAR as experts in cybersecurity.”

The center already is laying plans for a couple of initiatives, Basu said.

Under the most intriguing proposal, the new Cyber Center of Excellence would collect data about cyberattacks and security breaches from companies in the region and use data analytics to extract interesting trends, such as the source of cyberattacks and methods used. The center would disclose its findings and insights in a regular cybersecurity report.

Under another proposal, the center would provide a “cybersecurity Seal of approval” to assure tourists visiting San Diego that their hotel Wi-Fi network meets certain network security standards. The local hotel industry has been asking for something like this to allay concerns among tourists as well as business travelers in San Diego, according to Mark Cafferty of the EDC.

For all the effort to highlight San Diego’s cybersecurity cluster, however, the city failed to crack the list of Top 10 U.S. cities for cybersecurity job postings in the Burning Glass survey. In response to an Xconomy query, Will Markow of Burning Glass extended their data run a little further and found that San Diego ranks 12th on the top 10 list of cybersecurity job postings, with 3,665 postings in 2013.

San Diego is showing strong job growth, though. With a 112 percent growth rate from 2007-2013, San Diego is ranked ninth in a listing of fastest growing metro areas for cybersecurity job postings.

Almost any major U.S. city could make similar claims about their cybersecurity cluster, said Alan Paller, director of research at the Baltimore, MD-based SANS Institute, which provides security training continuing education courses systems administrators and other IT professionals. “On the other hand it’s impressive that [San Diego] is making the effort and I like the projects,” Paller writes in an e-mail.

In any case, the EDC study clearly mirrors the nationwide explosion in demand for cybersecurity products and services. At a time when employment growth in the San Diego region is estimated at about 2.2 percent for the next year, the study projects job growth among cybersecurity firms at 13 percent. Jobs for cybersecurity professionals, in particular, are expected to grow by 25.7 percent.

Some other highlights from the EDC study:

—More than 3,500 private sector employees work in cybersecurity-related jobs in the San Diego region, with a direct economic impact of more than $502 million annually.

—Private businesses across all industry sectors employ cybersecurity personnel, and companies like Sempra Energy and Qualcomm have made significant investments to defend their networks. More than half of the “cyberemployers” in San Diego indicated “they had either some difficulty or great difficulty finding qualified applicants who meet the organization’s hiring standards for cybersecurity positions.”

—SPAWAR, which oversees IT technologies for Navy enterprise information systems, space systems, and a long list of command, communications, intelligence, and reconnaissance systems, employs about 3,095 cyberprofessionals, with a direct economic benefit of nearly $438 million a year.

—The study estimates that the total economic impact from the cybersecurity industry in the San Diego region, including both direct and indirect benefits, is more than $1.5 billion.

__ With a Department of Defense proposing to spend $23 billion on fighting cyber crime over a subsequent 5 years, most of that income could come here, according to a report.

At the Boulevard Planning Group meeting, County employees made a brief presentation of the EIR. The small community room was packed with over two dozen residents of Boulevard, all expressing major concerns with the proposed projects. Robert Hingtgen and Mindy Fogg from the County’s Planning and Development Services discussed Soitec’s four proposed projects, which combined would encompass a total of 1,490 acres in Boulevard, with almost 7,500 solar trackers, each measuring 30 feet tall by 48 feet wide.

The EIR also contains nine alternative plans in response to potential revisions.

The four sites included in the existing plan are:

Tierra Del Sol, 420 acres with 2,657 trackers generating 60MW

Rugged, 765 acres with 3,588 trackers, generating 80MW

LanEast, 233 acres with 900 trackers generating 22MW

LanWest, 55 acres with 264 trackers generating 6.5MW

According to the County of San Diego, the draft Program EIR identified significant environmental impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, land use and noise.

Donna Tisdale, Chair of the Boulevard Planning Group, noted that Boulevard is a disproportionately impacted low-income rural community. According to Tisdale, residents in the community have raised the following concerns:

An unprecedented scale and density of massive tracking CPV modules of a magnitude never seen in the state

Industrial conversion of 2.3 square miles of a rural community in order to serve distant cities

More than 50 million gallons of irreplaceable groundwater resources for construction (in a community where homes use private wells)

Potential harmful levels of noise

Proximity to existing residences, decreasing quality of life and property values

Potentially health threatening levels of electrical pollution through ground, air and utility lines

Severe environmental impacts to wildlife, including the golden eagle.

“No other community is facing this level of unwelcome and unjust conversion,”said Tisdale. Boulevard has also been targeted for major wind energy projects and additional industrial solar facilities.

Boulevard residents in attendance at the January 2 meeting were vocal about perceived impacts to their properties, quality of life, health and safety. Many expressed frustration about potential ground water issues, interference with wells, and loss of property values. Industrial solar projects require large amounts of water to rinse and clean the panels–water that is a precious lifeblood in rural communities such as Boulevard.

When Fuller asked the County representatives if they are basing impacts to Golden Eagles on any other data, Fogg stated that they are only using the Bittner data right now, but are open to any other reports that would be available.

According to the United States Attorney, Southern District Of California, (http://www.justice.gov/usao/cas/press/2013/cas13-0418-BittnerPR.pdf ): “…Golden Eagle populations are primarily impacted by habitat loss, collisions with transmission lines and increasingly with wind turbines, ingestion of lead and other contaminants, and disturbance of nest and brooding sites.”

Another issue brought up was the County’s lack of a policy restricting conflict of interest. Tisdale noted that the original project manager, Patrick Brown, left the County and went right to work with Soitec. County representatives said there was no policy prohibiting this.

The California Environmental Quality Act requires state and local agencies to analyze a project’s potential environmental impacts and identify a range of feasible alternatives and mitigation measures to minimize harm. AB 900 shortened the list of topics subject to review and limited analysis to the project level, but was declared unconstitutional last April. The Soitec project has not met CEQA requirements. [However, their Application – Office of Planning and Research has already been submitted]

Chamber of Commerce CEO Jerry Sanders is a member of The Jobs Coalition.

Jim Waring never minced words when he was former Mayor Jerry Sanders’ top land-use guy. And he didn’t hold back Nov. 4 when he got one minute to tell the City Council not to increase the fee on developers to support affordable housing.

He said the city has been proud of the Soitec manufacturing plant that moved into Rancho Bernardo. Soitec is a French company that builds parts for solar arrays. More about their endeavor is in this U-T San Diego piece.

“I can tell you, because I saw the numbers with absolute certainty, that if this fee had been in place, Soitech would not be in San Diego,” Waring said.

That’s not exactly true. A Soitec spokeswoman says the company would have come regardless.

Waring told me that he was part of a group that worked to help Soitec get to San Diego. There were two steps: 1) They needed to persuade Soitec to come to California over Arizona. 2) They wanted the company in the city of San Diego not Oceanside, where there was a building the firm was considering.

Sanders and others in the economic development community led the effort.

“There were very good reasons to go to Oceanside. It was a teeny bit better in Oceanside. They made the decision to go to Rancho Bernardo because of all the city had done to welcome them,” Waring said.

But it was close.

“If they had been assessed another $400,000 or $500,000 extra, all things being equal, they would have gone to Oceanside,” he said.

Oceanside, like all cities in San Diego County other than San Diego, does not charge an affordable housing fee on commercial and industrial developments.

When I checked with Soitec, however, I was surprised to hear a representative say Waring was just flat wrong.

“In the context of a $200 million investment, it wasn’t an issue then. Would it have been a determining factor? Probably not because of such a strong allegiance Soitec had to San Diego,” said Karen Hutchens, a local public relations professional who represents the company.

I clarified to be sure. She was saying Waring was wrong.

“Yes, he is,” she said.

Hutchens said Soitec was motivated to come to San Diego County because of its contract with San Diego Gas & Electric. And it chose the city of San Diego because of Sanders.

Rancho Bernardo, she said, also offered the company easy access to a “talented workforce.”

Waring’s quote is only valid if the numbers he says he saw are actually produced, then we can see what impact the linkage fees would have had based on what Soitec put in as their walk away point.Without that, it’s meaningless.

And Soitec is meaningless in this discussion anyway, they are heavily on the government dole to begin with, we are paying them more than we will ever recover from them, it’s hardly indicative of a business that actually brings a level of productivity and growth to our region.

Hutchins PR is not Soitec. I’m not even certain they were in the room when the negotiations went down.That being said, with the at least $25 million in taxpayer money (possibly more) Soitec got they could afford to pay a few fees, but in reality with Tenaska and SDGE under mandate, passing all this to your electric bill. you are paying for all of this and if there were additional fees at the time you’d be passed the cost of those as well in your SDGE bill.

Note that this is a very very different situation than a company under competitive forces coming here. Sure companies can be Moonbeamed into our city when it all comes out of your pocket and their profit is guarenteed with your tax money. The solar mandate goes away, your tax money stops flowing to this French company, and Soitec will be gone as well.

For what it’s worth, Soitec refers all press to Hutchens and she was standing next to the Clark Crawford, the VP, when she was talking to me. She consulted him. If she doesn’t speak for the company, then they have a funny way of showing it.

For what it’s worth Scott, regardless of if Soitec would have chosen Oceanside over Rancho Bernardo over a few million, the proper PR at this time is to say they wouldn’t have. It’s called PR and not truth department for a reason. PR’s job is to lie and mislead to put a company in the best light possible, often using reporters as their useful tools. If Soitec had to pay linkage fees, likely they would have been added in to the California money we are sending to France in those half dozen or so CPUC contracts they were awarded in this specific case, or they might have rethought Oceanside, we will never really know because it wan’t an issue. Even Clark Crawford doesn’t know what would have resulted if the city said “you need to pay $X million additional for your RB location” . Right now, from a PR perspective nothing they say can really be indicative of past what-ifs, it can only reflect what the company wants thought today.Aside from that Soitec has signed SDGE contracts, billed eventually to SDGE customers like us worth hundreds of millions and a $25 million dollar grant on top of that, Soitec has a CPUC guaranteed profit regardless of fees or taxes, mandated from Sacramento and paid by us. To try to use that to imply there is no impact from Linkage Fees is frankly dishonest. Soitec is not here on a competitive basis, their share of our money is as hard baked in as SDGE, so they don’t have to worry about linkage fees.

PR people aren’t always straight with reporters?? You’re shattering my world view Jim! Will remind you it was Jim Waring who said, with certainty, that the linkage fees would have mattered. I started this because I wanted to verify that and use it in my previous piece. Didn’t work out that way.

Scott, if you want to verify what Waring said, you have to find out what was said in the meeting, or verify it on paperwork.Was increased linkage fees discussed in the meeting? Probably not but I see no mention of you even asking.

What was the differential in cost to Soitec between Oceanside and RB that was discussed? If you can show that in the discussion Soitec indicated there was a trigger point for Oceanside, and the linkage fees would have exceeded that trigger point, then Waring could be believed. Did you ask this of any of the parties?

Was there anything in the PPA’s they signed to mitigate additional fees?

Also as an aside, Soitec said the factory would employee 450 directly, near as I can tell they have 200. Is that true?

And to the main point, Soitec isn’t indicative of linkage fees impact on business regardless of what the situation is, they are basically a government contractor with a baked in and generous profit agreement for installing those pies in the sky paid for by the citizen zombie. I don’t think anyone on either side has claimed linkage fees will hurt the ability of the state to pay a company hundreds of million of dollars to set up shop here.

Not sure what meeting you’re referring to. But yes, I asked both about it. Hutchens said linkage fees were discussed. Waring admitted he only knew that it was close comparison. Actually, I’m not even sure that Soitec would have had to pay the fee. It did not build a new building. Checking now.

Um, linkage fees being discussed means nothing, were INCREASED linkage fees discussed? I have no doubt that existing linkage fees were discussed.There were a series of discussions between Soitec and the city, Scott. This thing was so big that at the plant dedication not only did Moonbeam fly in, but even Fletcher was able to pull himself away from his busy schedule to attend, with tens of other suits.

Obviously there was a point where Soitec would have moved to Homicide, I mean Oceanside. What was that tipping point? $1? $10,000? $1,000,000? Was it discussed in a meeting at all? If you can’t get that number then the whole thing is meaningless.

Was Hutchens even there when the differential between Oceanside and RB was discussed? Who else was there that can verify things? Was Crawford even there? He’s a sales VP, right? If there did he have a voice in San Diego vs. Oceanside? Being in LaJolla I believe he likely assumed the plant would be closer to home no matter what, and Auberton-Hervé would have had no reason to make him think otherwise. Did Auberton-Hervé himself negotiate with Sanders directly?

I just don’t see how you can determine, based on a PR flak that has a brief consoltation with a sales VP, that Soitec would or wouldn’t have gone to RB or even out of state if linkage fees did impact them by some amount.

Also you simply can’t use Soitec as a case for linkage fees impact on buisness coming here, the goverment (funded by us) is paying this overseas company hundreds of millions of dollars to come here. No one has argued that linkage fees will stop companies that are getting filthy rich off goverment money and SDGE and CPUC contracts. Linkage fees or not we can always bring someone here at our cost.

Oh, and has Soitec employed the 450 directly employed people it said it would?

So the sky isn’t falling…thanks for following up on this. It illustrates how easy it is to say things, pro or con, and of how little value or relevance they may to the issue at hand. Hard for the public, staff or council to respond at the time. Some public hearings require comments to be submitted in writing and enable investigation and considered response by staff (and the other side) to help separate rantings from genuine concerns.

1. What kind of oversight do local law enforcement agencies have to ensure they’re not abusing their surveillance tactics? via Davy_boy

Ali Winston: Most police departments regulate their intelligence gathering practices through internal general orders, if they’re large enough by audits from internal inspector generals, or independent civilian oversight bodies, if they exist. Some departments, like NYPD and San Francisco PD, had court restrictions on their intelligence gathering operations imposed in the 1980s and 1990s after abuses came to light. NYPD’s decree, the Handschu Decree is probably the best-known restriction on local police intelligence gathering, though it was controversially loosened after September 11. The lack of oversight and relaxed restrictions are part of the reason Counterterrorism and Intelligence Divisions began their own surveillance operations, which Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman wrote about in their book, Enemies Within.

The ACLU found that departments have widely ranging guidelines for how long they’ll store plate-scanner data, from 48 hours to five years to indefinitely.

G.W. Schulz: It frequently depends on the individual agency and what rules it adopts for things like retaining data from license-plate scanners. But there are also decades-old rules on data storage stemming from spying abuses that took place in the middle of the last century. See 28 CFR Part 23.

Any communities you’ve run into with a particularly worrying lack of rules or oversight system? (continued, via Davy_boy)

Fresno, because the city has an extremely high rate of officer-involved shootings. NYPD, for having a police commissioner who went rogue over the past 10 years with stop and frisk and the Muslim spying program. Chicago PD for too many reasons to count, but Jon Burge‘s saga is a good example of the department’s lack of accountability.

PIPS Technology – the Most Advanced License Plate Recognition Systems in the World

Applications for ALPR:

PIPS Technology is an industry leader in the development and manufacture of (ANPR) Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems. The broad range of systems provide the next generation of information technology for Journey Time Measurement Systems, Police, Toll Enforcement, Congestion Charging, Road User Charging, Parking Systems, Traffic Monitoring and Automated Site Security. PIPS is certified to ISO 9001:2008 conforming to the highest International Standards for design and manufacture of our range of products.

PIPS award winning products and over 20 years of video camera technology and integration expertise provides us with the ability to create, deliver and support tailored solutions to meet your needs.

With over 15000 cameras deployed around the globe and a wide range of patents covering our technology and its application, PIPS Technology is widely recognized as a leading provider of traffic related video imaging and number plate capture technology.

The PIPS team are passionate about camera and software technology, we believe that anything is possible. Our aim is to provide our customers with the world’s most reliable, accurate and cost effective ANPR and Image processing systems.

San Diego County: ARJIS The Automated Regional Justice Information System was created as a joint powers agency to share information among justice agencies throughout San Diego and Imperial Counties, California.

ARJIS Vision

ARJIS is internationally recognized for leadership, collaboration, information sharing and regional acquisition of effective information technology. We use community partnerships and regional information technology to address and “anticipate public safety issues” and to improve quality of life.

On the website, you can view maps in either a satellite photo view or on a road map. Just enter an address or a location (Balboa Park, CA) in the ‘Search’ box to see crimes for the last week, or select a different date range (up to one year).

1) Corporations Request for Qualifications for Tactical Identification System Development Services dated March 1, 2012, including Addendum Number 1 (Contract Exhibit

A),included herein by reference as if in full text; and,

2) Section 200 of this Contract.WHEREAS, Consultant has submitted to Corporation its Response to Corporation’s RFQ dated March 20, 2012, including Response Clarification Number 1 dated April 20, 2012,

and Response Clarification Number 2 dated April 26, 2012 (Contract Exhibit B), included herein by reference as if in full text, which represents Consultant’s proposal to provide the professional services referenced herein (“Proposal”).

WHEREAS, Exhibits A and shall be limited to those items actually purchased by Corporation on behalf of Customer and shall exclude any items not purchased.

BASE TERMSDESCRIPTION OF SERVICES:

Consultant shall provide consulting services to the Corporation related to a proof of concept for and development of a tactical identification system for Customer that leverages and incorporates Consultant’s existing

Corporation(s):

FaceFirst® suite of facial biometric solutions.Airborne Biometrics Group ContractList of ExhibitsThe services shall be performed in accordance with the following listed documents that are attached hereto and made a part hereof:Corporation’s RFQ for TACIDS Development Services, Contract Exhibit Consultant’s Response to Corporation’s RFQ, Contract Exhibit.

Airborne Biometrics Group Inc.

Attention: Executive Director5975 Santa Fe StreetSan Diego, CA 92109

EFFECTIVE DATE:The “effective date” of this Contract: May 16, 2012Airborne Biometrics Group Inc.Attention: Vice President of Engineering1070 RoadCamarillo, CA. 93012

STATUS OF CONSULTANT:

This Contract calls for performance of the services of the Consultant as an independent contractor. Consultant will not be considered an employee of the Corporation for any purpose.

OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS AND DOCUMENTS:

Excepting such items specifically identified by the Consultant as “proprietary trade secrets,” any and all sketches, drawings, tracings, field survey notes, computations, detail, and other materials and documents prepared by the Consultant pursuant to this “Contract shall be the property of the Corporation from the moment of their preparation,” and the Consultant shall deliver such materials and documents to the Corporation whenever requested to do so by the Corporation.

However, “the Consultant shall have the right to make duplicate copies of such materials and documents for its own file or for other purposes as may be authorized in writing by the Corporation.” and “All Corporation and Customer data, records, documentation, source code and information.”

Consultant shall not use Corporation/ Customer Data for any purpose other than as required under this Contract and shall “return all Corporation!”

Corporation acknowledges and agrees that the FaceFirst® suite of software (the “Technology”) is a valuable commercial product of Consultant (the development of which has involved expenditure by Company of substantial time and money) or its suppliers and vendors (“Suppliers”).

Corporation further acknowledges and agrees that, except for the licenses expressly granted by Consultant to Corporation pursuant to Contract Section 200, Consultant(or its Suppliers) owns and reserves, and shall continue to own and reserve, all rights, title and interests in and to Technology, and any derivatives of the Technology developed by Consultant (including the TACIDS solution developed by Consultant pursuant to this Contract), “including all intellectual property rights.”

“No ownership right is granted to Corporation or Customer for any intellectual property” relating to the Technology or any of the foregoing the Corporation/Customer Data: designs, plans, reports, “investigations, materials,” and documents prepared or acquired by the Consultant pursuant to this Contract (including any duplicate copies kept by the Consultant) shall not be shown or disclosed to any other public or private person or entity directly or indirectly, “except as authorized by the Corporation.”

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

For the duration of this Contract, the Consultant will not act as a consultant or perform services of any kind for any person or entity which would conflict with the services to be provided herein without the prior written consent of the Corporation.

If a conflict occurs when circumstances, known to the Consultant, place the Corporation and Consultants new “client in adverse, hostile, or incompatible positions” wherein the interests of the Corporation may be jeopardized. Consultant shall notify the Corporation in the event that such a conflict occurs.

In the event of such a conflict, Consultant shall meet and confer with the Corporation to agree upon “modifications of its relationship” with said new client or Corporation in order to continue to perform services for said client and/or Corporation without compromising the interests of either.

Should no agreement regarding modification be reached, Corporation may terminate this Contract.

Consultant agrees to alert every client for whom consent is required to the existence of “conflict of interest provision” and to include language in its agreement with said client which would enable Consultant to comply fully with its terms. This last paragraph shall not apply to existing clients of the Consultant for which the Consultant has previously received the Corporation’s consent.

This Contract may be unilaterally and immediately terminated by the Corporation if Consultant employs an individual who, within the twelve (12) months immediately preceding such employment, in his/her capacity as a Corporation employee, participated in “negotiations with or otherwise had an influence on the selection of the Consultant.”

LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION:

The “Consultant shall be responsible for all injuries to persons of the Corporation or others caused by or resulting from the negligence of the Consultant, its employees, or its agents during the progress of or connected with the rendition of services by Consultant hereunder.”

Consultant shall indemnify, defend and “hold harmless” the Corporation, Customer, and all officers, directors, employees and insurers of the Corporation and the Customer from and against “any claim, action, proceeding, liability, loss, damage, cost or expense, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys” fees:

for “damages to real or personal property or personal injury to any third party resulting from the negligence of Consultant, its employees, or its agents;” or,

b. for “any breach of any obligations, duties or covenants of Consultant under this Contract or transactions related to it.”The Corporation shall be responsible for all injuries to personnel of the Consultant or others caused by or resulting from the negligence of the Corporation, its employees, or its agents during the progress of or connected with the rendition of services by Consultant hereunder.

The Corporation shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Consultant and all officers, directors, employees and insurers of the Consultant from and “against any claim, action,” proceeding, liability, loss, damage, cost or expense, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees:

A. for “damages to real or personal property or personal injury to any third party resulting from the negligence of Consultant, its employees, or its agents;” or,

b. for any breach of any obligations, duties or covenants of Corporation under this Contract or “transactions” related to it.

INSURANCE:

Consultant shall not commence performance of services until Consultant has obtained, “at its sole cost and expense,” all insurance required under this Section and until such insurance has been approved by the Corporation. Consultant shall not allow any approved subcontractor to commence work on a subcontract “until all similar insurance required of the subcontractor” has been obtained and approved.Consultant agrees to purchase and maintain in full force and affect the following insurance policies:

Consultant waives any right of recovery against Corporation and the Customer or against the officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives of Corporation and the Customer for loss of or damage to Consultant or its property or the property of others under Consultant’s control, where such loss or damage is “insured against under any insurance policy” in force at the time of such loss or damage. Consultant shall, upon obtaining the insurance policies required hereunder, give notice to the insurance carriers that the foregoing waiver of subrogation is contained in this Contract.

SEVERABILITY

If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Contract is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions of this Contract shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired, or invalidated.

CONTRACT GOVERNED BY LAW OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA:

This Contract and its performance and all suits and special proceedings under this Contract shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In any action, special proceeding, or other proceeding that may be brought arising out of, under, or because of this Contract, the laws of the State of California shall be applicable and shall govern to the “exclusion of the law” of any other forum, without regard to the jurisdiction in which the action or special proceeding may be instituted.

ACCESS TO FACILITIES, COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND ELECTRONIC DATA

Consultant, its employees, agents and subcontractors, “will be granted access to Corporation and/or Customer facilities, computer systems and electronic data only” in compliance with Corporation’s and Customer’s standard administrative and security requirements, including processes for registering and wearing identification badges, and only for the purpose of carrying out Consultant’s obligations hereunder. Access to such facilities, computer systems and electronic data may be restricted to the hours of 8:00 am to 5:00 pm local time on weekdays.

Access to such facilities, computer systems and electronic data outside those standard hours must be approved in advance by Corporation or Customer. Consultant shall have no tenancy, or other property or other rights in such facilities, computer systems and electronic data.

Each of Consultant’s regularly assigned personnel will be issued Corporation’s standard vendor identification badge that must be worn at all times while performing services at Corporation and/or Customer facilities. All other Consultant personnel and representatives requiring access to Corporation and/or Customer facilities must register with the main entrance receptionist and will be issued a visitor badge that must be worn while in the facility.

“Corporation will, if necessary, provide Consultant a virtual private network that is limited to the computer system(s)” requiring remote support, said access to be in accordance with Corporation’s access protocol and security requirements, as follows:

is a public agency organized as a California nonprofit public benefit corporation established June l5, 1979, by the City of San Diego, to provide data processing and telecommunications services to the City and “other governmental organizations.”

Automated Regional Justice Information System ARJIS was created as a joint powers agency in share information. among justice agencies throughout San Diego and Imperial Counties, California. IS has evolved into a complex crirninal justice enterprise network used by more than 80 local, state and federal agencies in the two California counties that border Mexico.

The “secure intranet” integrates more than 6,000 workstations throughout the 4,265 square miles of San Diego County. There are more than 1,000 authorized users of that generate more than 35,000 transactions daily.

Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS) is used for tactical analysis, investigations, statistical information and crime analysis. The ARJIS governance structure promotes data sharing and cooperation at all levels for member agencies, from chiefs to officers to technical staff.

ARJ IS is a division of SANDAG (the San Diego Association of Governments) which enhances opportunities at the federal and state level by providing advocacy services and funding opportunities.

ObjectiveARJIS currently uses the following three (3) data sources for facial images to make suspect comparisons:

The IS Cal—Photo database contained within the domain;The San Diego County Sheriffs system that may be available through the domain via web service; and, FaceMatch enrollment system.

The primary objective of this RF is to award a consulting services contract to a qualified application development firm with facial recognition technology experience (“Vendor”) to create a mobile solution for police officers in the field to assist them inidentifying persons who are not in possession of identification documents. It is expected that the Vendor will develop:

We are writing to express our full support for a FAA designated UASIUAV Test Site application from the Indian Wells Valley Airport District and its coalition of partners including the San Diego regional Economic Development Corporation, the San Diego Military Advisory Council, ad the San Diego North Chamber of Commerce. San Diego is a center of aerospace and the region meets and/or exceeds the criteria put forth by the FAA for a UAS/UAV test site.

The proposed operating area spans a diverse geography and climate conditions, which is vital to compiling a robust body of data to guide decisions on how to integrate UAS into the National Airspace. The area consists of a variety of terrain from desert to offshore islands, temperature extremes, and a range of moisture conditions to simulate environmental conditions throughout the United States. i.e. San Diego back country.

The San Diego region is home to one of the most active UAS/UAV industries in the United States two of the largest manufacturers of DAS in the world are headquartered in the region, supported by many other companies in the supply chain. Small businesses related to UAS are flourishing. San Diego has not only the necessary ground infrastructure but also the human capital and research resources. Partnerships with academia are important to FAA’s ability to gather all the technical data needed. Our six major universities in the San Diego region are already taking steps to ensure they are providing the necessary research and education for the industry to thrive. A recent study by the San Diego North Chamber of Commerce found that the VAS/VAV industries accounted for $1.3 billion of activity and 7,200 jobs in the region in 2011. By 2019, the activity will exceed $12 billion.

We ask that you give this proposal full and fair consideration. No doubt, the Indian Wells Valley Airport District proposal offers the expertise, experience, and innovation of the people and institutions of San Diego.